Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Modern Liberals Are Intolerant Hypocrites Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiss)
    I
    Modern liberals do not like free thinkers, and their first go-to in any argument is to immediately suggest or openly say you are a bigot of some kind. This is largely because it is an easy option but also it makes the audience turn against you:
    Well said, as psychologist Jonathan Haidt has noted - this in part appears to be a tribal moral response to protect sacred values. It's widespread in the social sciences in academia:

    The fields of psychology, sociology and anthropology have long attracted liberals, but they became more exclusive after the 1960s, according to Dr. Haidt. “The fight for civil rights and against racism became the sacred cause unifying the left throughout American society, and within the academy,” he said, arguing that this shared morality both “binds and blinds.”

    “If a group circles around sacred values, they will evolve into a tribal-moral community,” he said. “They’ll embrace science whenever it supports their sacred values, but they’ll ditch it or distort it as soon as it threatens a sacred value.” It’s easy for social scientists to observe this process in other communities, like the fundamentalist Christians who embrace “intelligent design” while rejecting Darwinism. But academics can be selective, too, as Daniel Patrick Moynihan found in 1965 when he warned about the rise of unmarried parenthood and welfare dependency among blacks — violating the taboo against criticizing victims of racism.

    “Moynihan was shunned by many of his colleagues at Harvard as racist,” Dr. Haidt said. “Open-minded inquiry into the problems of the black family was shut down for decades, precisely the decades in which it was most urgently needed. Only in the last few years have liberal sociologists begun to acknowledge that Moynihan was right all along.”

    Similarly, Larry Summers, then president of Harvard, was ostracized in 2005 for wondering publicly whether the preponderance of male professors in some top math and science departments might be due partly to the larger variance in I.Q. scores among men (meaning there are more men at the very high and very low ends). “This was not a permissible hypothesis,” Dr. Haidt said. “It blamed the victims rather than the powerful. The outrage ultimately led to his resignation. We psychologists should have been outraged by the outrage. We should have defended his right to think freely.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/sc...tier.html?_r=0
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bertstare)
    Completely agree with everything in the OP, awesome thread
    Cheers.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiss)
    Modern liberals do not like free thinkers, and their first go-to in any argument is to immediately suggest or openly say you are a bigot of some kind.
    I don't agree with shutting down a debate on Islam, if it is consistent with public order, but most of the time people complaining about "modern liberals" are bigots, and have more in common with their Muslim opponents (hating gay people, misogynistic, etc) than their liberal enemies.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    I don't agree with shutting down a debate on Islam, if it is consistent with public order, but most of the time people complaining about "modern liberals" are bigots, and have more in common with their Muslim opponents (hating gay people, misogynistic, etc) than their liberal enemies.
    What has this got to do with Islam? I never posted anything remotely related to religion. I don't know if you're referring to the consistent defense that liberals put up for Muslims despite obvious flaws such as Sharia Law, aspects of Sunni and Shia Islam or if this is something completely different?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    As long as someone agree's with homosexuality, their good. If they do not, they are often severely abused.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Reading through this thread and others, I see one group coming up over and over: UAF.
    Smashing towns up, intimidating people, destroying democracy with violence.

    Here are some recent comments:

    (Original post by Scumbaggio)
    I've been called a nazi by UAF for having a shaved head and wearing a fred perry coat!
    Hypocrisy is something I detest.
    (Original post by A Mysterious Lord)
    UAF aren't liberals, they are left wing extremists and should be treated no differently to the EDL.
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    btw I have no problem with anti fascism, but the UAF's approach is counter productive and apolitical
    (Original post by digitaltoast)
    Everyone knows full well that UAF means violence; nothing else could be read into the threats above.
    (Original post by Kiss)
    Groups such as the UAF and Smash-The-EDL advocate rather aggressive and hypocritical messages in order to ostracise their opponents and rally support
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    Completely agree with the OP.

    A true test of your open-mindedness and willingness to listen to, or respect others beliefs, are you how you react when someone challenges your beliefs.
    The UAF thing mentioned is one that gets me. The hypocrisy of claiming to fight bigots who generalize, by generalizing them and threatening them with violence.
    (Original post by Blackburn_Allen)
    Modern Liberalism seems to take home in organisations such as the UAF where violence is met with violence and any attempt to argue against them is met with a protest or a petition to make sure your voice is not heard.
    (Original post by Blackburn_Allen)
    You only have to go onto most university campuses to notice that this form of liberalism is quickly becoming the common thing and it is quickly tainting the classic liberal as one of them. I don't think organisations such as the UAF help the cause either. They flock under the banner of liberalism and democracy yet are renown for violence, censorship and chaos.
    But you know, you CAN do something about this. We can reclaim democracy and fight UAF fascism not with bricks and fists, but with democracy itself.

    It takes 10 minutes. If everyone interested in democracy on this forum spent just 10 minutes reading and acting on this thread, maybe we might just change something?

    You might want to have a look at this list: http://uaf.org.uk/about/founding-signatories/

    See the name of your MP? Perhaps your favourite group or artist is a signatory?

    Ask them (http://www.writetothem.com/), as a politician whose work is supposed to be built around engagement, debate and different viewpoints, what they think of UAF Assistant secretary Martin Smith Martin Smith in this radio interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=032tGswMG00 or a similar on with UAF Joint secretary Weyman Bennett http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTFbBhKo6tE

    Why do those names ring a bell? Oh yes,

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_A...nd_controversy

    On 22 October 2009, the UAF demonstration against Nick Griffin's appearance on the BBC's Question Time programme resulted in injuries to three police officers. UAF national officer and (then) SWP National Secretary Martin Smith was found guilty of assaulting one of the police officers at South Western Magistrates' Court, London, on 7 September 2010. He was sentenced to a 12-month community order, with 80 hours' unpaid work, and was fined £450 pending an appeal.

    On 20 March 2010 demonstrations from UAF and the English Defence League (EDL) in Bolton led to violent confrontations and the arrest of at least 55 UAF supporters, including the UAF protest organiser Weyman Bennett, on suspicion of conspiracy to commit violent disorder At least three EDL supporters were also arrested, and two UAF members were taken to hospital with a minor head and a minor ear injury. The police, while criticising the EDL for "vitriolic name-calling" blamed people predominantly associated with UAF for provoking violence and said that they "acted with, at times, extreme violence".
    Violence is the calling card of the UAF, most recently in Brighton: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-_1zn6dbhE

    And not for the first time.

    On 30 August 2010, violence occurred in Brighton, East Sussex, during a UAF protest against a march organised by a group called the English Nationalist Alliance (ENA). A spokesman for the police, who were attempting to keep 250 protesters and marchers apart, said "Unfortunately a small group from the counter-demonstration [UAF] resisted this and threw missiles at the police." There were fourteen arrests during the violence.
    Ask your MP if they support that, too. I asked Cameron in 2009 why his name appears on the list.

    I see your name appears as a signatory of the UAF (enclosed screenshot).

    Can you confirm this is true?

    The UAF is a fascist organisation who use violent, antidemocratic and bullying tactics and are openly racist. They have been disassociated by most of the groups they used to rub shoulders with, and even some unions are uncomfortable with them.

    Throwing eggs at MPs, beating up groups supporting women's rights - is this something you feel you should be linked with?
    to which his office replied:

    The reference made by the UAF to David Cameron derives from correspondence between them from many years ago.

    At the same time, David Cameron has also asked me to emphasise that he does not in any way support, and should not be taken in any way to support, any action which is unlawful or which attempts to curtail proper freedom of speech in the UK. I hope you feel reassured by that.
    Notice how that didn't actually answer the question.

    Back to the list of UAF threats and violence:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NUS_No_..._to_the_policy
    In February 2010, the NUS was heavily criticised after two of its officers forced a proposed debate on multiculturalism at the University of Durham to be cancelled.The debate, organised by Durham Union Society, was to have featured two prominent British National Party members: Andrew Brons MEP and Leeds City Councillor Chris Beverley. Upon hearing of BNP involvement in the debate, NUS Black Students' Officer Bellavia Ribeiro-Addy and NUS LGBT Officer Daf Adley jointly sent a letter to both Durham Union Society and the university demanding its cancellation. The pair incorrectly stated that the debate would be illegal and threatened to organise a "colossal demonstration" in tandem with Unite Against Fascism, adding that "if any students are hurt in and around this event responsibility will lie with you"
    Could this be why Luton banned the UAF as well as the EDL? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...herts-17833338

    Maybe you could as your MP if they agree with the statement " there IS no 'anti' fascism without fascism"?
    http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/the-m...n-this-weekend

    Perhaps it's a female politician - ask if Emmeline Pankhurst did what she did for the right for women to vote, only to find one of her sisters kicked on the floor 100 years later by 20 or so men because she holds a differing viewpoint.

    Ask them if they think it's OK that a disabled child is spat at through a car window because their parent holds a differing viewpoint.

    And ask them for their answer to be clear and absolute. And let's see some answers posted here
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    I don't agree with shutting down a debate on Islam, if it is consistent with public order, but most of the time people complaining about "modern liberals" are bigots, and have more in common with their Muslim opponents (hating gay people, misogynistic, etc) than their liberal enemies.
    My argument never mentioned anything remotely related to religion so I don't know where you're getting Islam from?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by digitaltoast)
    Reading through this thread and others, I see one group coming up over and over: UAF.
    Smashing towns up, intimidating people, destroying democracy with violence.

    Here are some recent comments:



    But you know, you CAN do something about this. We can reclaim democracy and fight UAF fascism not with bricks and fists, but with democracy itself.

    It takes 10 minutes. If everyone interested in democracy on this forum spent just 10 minutes reading and acting on this thread, maybe we might just change something?

    You might want to have a look at this list: http://uaf.org.uk/about/founding-signatories/

    See the name of your MP? Perhaps your favourite group or artist is a signatory?

    Ask them (http://www.writetothem.com/), as a politician whose work is supposed to be built around engagement, debate and different viewpoints, what they think of UAF Assistant secretary Martin Smith Martin Smith in this radio interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=032tGswMG00 or a similar on with UAF Joint secretary Weyman Bennett http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTFbBhKo6tE

    Why do those names ring a bell? Oh yes,

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_A...nd_controversy



    Violence is the calling card of the UAF, most recently in Brighton: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-_1zn6dbhE

    And not for the first time.



    Ask your MP if they support that, too. I asked Cameron in 2009 why his name appears on the list.



    to which his office replied:



    Notice how that didn't actually answer the question.

    Back to the list of UAF threats and violence:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NUS_No_..._to_the_policy


    Could this be why Luton banned the UAF as well as the EDL? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...herts-17833338

    Maybe you could as your MP if they agree with the statement " there IS no 'anti' fascism without fascism"?
    http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/the-m...n-this-weekend

    Perhaps it's a female politician - ask if Emmeline Pankhurst did what she did for the right for women to vote, only to find one of her sisters kicked on the floor 100 years later by 20 or so men because she holds a differing viewpoint.

    Ask them if they think it's OK that a disabled child is spat at through a car window because their parent holds a differing viewpoint.

    And ask them for their answer to be clear and absolute. And let's see some answers posted here
    I don't know why UAF violence keeps coming up in a thread supposedly about liberals. The more radical members of the UAF are generally anarchists or revolutionary communists who despise liberals almost as much as the far right. People need to stop using the word 'liberal' to mean 'anybody who is not right wing'. Also you conveniently missed the part where all charges against Weyman Bennett were dropped.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    I don't know why UAF violence keeps coming up in a thread supposedly about liberals.
    Looking at that list of "founding signatories", wouldn't you say that by far the majority of supporters were what would be termed "liberal"?

    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    Also you conveniently missed the part where all charges against Weyman Bennett were dropped.
    Because, apart from Wikipedia, I cannot find, anywhere, a reliable source.
    For such a well and heavily reference article, it seems odd that there's no reference for that.

    What I DO find is http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...e-1925038.html

    Virtually all those arrested were later released without charge. One of the few exceptions was Weyman Bennett, a senior member of the UAF, who was arrested at the start of the demonstration and was charged with conspiracy to organise violent disorder.
    All I can find is loads of pages from groups like SWP calling for police to drop the charges against "comrade Bennett".

    If you know otherwise, please feel free to update Wikipedia and post the link to the official court papers here.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by digitaltoast)
    Looking at that list of "founding signatories", wouldn't you say that by far the majority of supporters were what would be termed "liberal"?
    I would also say the majority of supporters are peaceful.

    Because, apart from Wikipedia, I cannot find, anywhere, a reliable source.
    For such a well and heavily reference article, it seems odd that there's no reference for that.

    What I DO find is http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...e-1925038.html



    All I can find is loads of pages from groups like SWP calling for police to drop the charges against "comrade Bennett".

    If you know otherwise, please feel free to update Wikipedia and post the link to the official court papers here.

    It is referenced. Citation #32.
    http://www.manchestereveningnews.co....s-after-903400

    Weyman Bennett, Rhetta Moran and Paul Jenkins from Unite Against Fascism were among 74 people arrested during the March demonstration.

    ...

    The trio were interviewed by police on two separate occasions but the Crown Prosecution Service has advised that no further action should be taken.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    I would also say the majority of supporters are peaceful.
    Sorry, that doesn't wash. If you put your name to bricks, violence, beatings, fascism, vandalism and anti-democratic activity, then you are associated with that.

    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    It is referenced. Citation #32.
    http://www.manchestereveningnews.co....s-after-903400
    Fair enough, I missed that. However, I'm sure you'll also be aware of many miscarriages of justice - the killers of Stephen Lawrence were cleared at first. OJ Simpson was innocent, apparently. And as I'm sure you'll have read "More than 10,000 serious violent crimes were dealt with informally last year. Unlike a caution, a community resolution does not lead to a criminal record".

    You know full well that prosecutions are dropped on technicalities, and I'd be most interested to see the reasons for it.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by digitaltoast)
    Sorry, that doesn't wash. If you put your name to bricks, violence, beatings, fascism, vandalism and anti-democratic activity, then you are associated with that.
    All you have is a few examples from Wikipedia, and in one of those examples almost everybody had the charges against them dropped; another one is described as 'a small group' and one is a single person being convicted. So yes, I would say the majority of members are non-violent.


    Fair enough, I missed that. However, I'm sure you'll also be aware of many miscarriages of justice - the killers of Damilola Taylor were cleared at first. OJ Simpson was innocent, apparently. And as I'm sure you'll have read "More than 10,000 serious violent crimes were dealt with informally last year. Unlike a caution, a community resolution does not lead to a criminal record".

    You know full well that prosecutions are dropped on technicalities, and I'd be most interested to see the reasons for it.
    You have no reason to assume these things apply in this situation. Besides, there's a difference between being found innocent like OJ and having all charges against you dropped because there was never even a convincing case to begin with.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bobifier)
    By modern liberal, you seem to mean student liberal. My general experience is that most people grow out of this kind of thing after graduation, and the ones that don't usually end up labelled as lunatics anyway.
    Considering that the governments of the last few decades have consistently legislated this very reality that the OP is talking about indicates to me you are wrong.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Macabre)
    However people must always have the right to say those things and then face the consequences of the words they use.
    Some freedoms are no freedom at all. What you said would fall in that category. So I have the freedom to say something but will have to suffer the ending of my career and a day in court?

    Take James Watson for example. He is the geneticist that said that all the empirical data available to them indicates that black IQ did not bode well for Africa. We are talking about actual statistical data. He was summarily demonized in the press and his tenure revoked.

    He did not claim blacks deserve less rights, or call for violence or for any other measure against them. He merely repeated the facts he had in front of him. That is intellectual censorship and very illiberal.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mmmpie)
    Perhaps that is a better word. It's part of the same old dilemma though: can we tolerate intolerance? Can a liberal society permit illiberal elements within itself?
    This is the crux. Who defines which opinions are illiberal?

    In the Western world what has happened is that, for example, the question whether "diversity is good" has become proof in itself that one is racist. Thus diversity (benefits of which cannot be quantified) and its desirability (regardless of facts) cannot be questioned. It becomes dogma and is certainly not liberal.

    This is similar to questioning the church's wisdom was evidence that the devil was working through an individual. A nice little unfalsifiable truth. Or the failings of communism being blamed on capitalist tendencies within individuals.

    Haven't we all heard that multiculturism in the UK struggles to succeed
    because of inherent racism, whether overt/visible or not? We are guilty of the charge unless the stated objective is reached. So how can the objective be challenged? Yet it is possible that diversity is what increases the feelings of racism in the first place because that is human nature.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by STBUR)
    This is the crux. Who defines which opinions are illiberal?

    In the Western world what has happened is that, for example, the question whether "diversity is good" has become proof in itself that one is racist. Thus diversity (benefits of which cannot be quantified) and its desirability (regardless of facts) cannot be questioned. It becomes dogma and is certainly not liberal.

    This is similar to questioning the church's wisdom was evidence that the devil was working through an individual. A nice little unfalsifiable truth. Or the failings of communism being blamed on capitalist tendencies within individuals.

    Haven't we all heard that multiculturism in the UK struggles to succeed
    because of inherent racism, whether overt/visible or not? We are guilty of the charge unless the stated objective is reached. So how can the objective be challenged? Yet it is possible that diversity is what increases the feelings of racism in the first place because that is human nature.
    Yes, but if you posed this question in public you'd be demonised as a xenophobe/racist.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Are unpaid trial work shifts fair?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.